Questions for Climate Scientists/Engineers

  1. Max amount of Temp change from doubling of CO2 in a lab. See graph. What about convection in atmosphere – vertical and horz – 3D
  2. Water vapour – positive FB – amplification – hot spot. Positive FB in a long term stable climate system. Been hotter, more humid, way more co2 than now and never run away before.  Say fastest change. not supported by history.
  3. how LWIR back radiation heat ocean without heat atmosphere? impossible
  4. Co2 residence time
  5. Clouds
  6. Parameterization – fudge factors – processes on a molecular level vs grid sizes of 60 by 60 miles.  approximations by formula – vary by non linear chaotic
  7. Percent of GHG effect from CO2 in GCMs  2% to 45%  Average 20-30% and still run hot.
  8. Storms and vertical energy transfers



CO2 Residence time.png

Temperature vs Models

Models vs observations

Climate Sensitivity in Published Papers

Humidity model vs actual


High Fuel Use Activities

All leisure, travel and sports activities are not necessary so to most people, it seems like they are just levels of the same thing. Car racing, jets(travel), luxury yachts, speed boats, quads, 4×4 trucks, helicopters are all high fuel use so where do we draw a line. Over consumption and waste are real issues but high fuel use is only an issue if you believe the advocacy around CO2. People are gradually catching on that the Climate Change issue is much more than just science and physics. They also have to believe in the input assumptions and theories and the projections from climate models and then impact forecasts from notoriously unreliable economic models. Even if you believe the warming disaster forecasts, it may take much less GDP and be better for the environment and the economy to adapt to the warming versus spend trillions and cripple the economy to try control climate by reducing the increase in CO2.

What if we waste all that money, destroy our economies and bankrupt our countries with debt and it turns out that the warming is all due to natural causes?  What if we prevent third world from using cheap reliable hydrocarbon energy and hundreds of millions continue to die and the warming was all natural?

Climate Change – Belief versus Behavior

The whole world votes on Climate Change every day with their behavior. They choose to continue to grow crops, feed their families, heat their homes, commute to work, power their industries, run their electronics, drive, fly and travel to the beach, the parks and mountains. They spend their money to survive and to enjoy life.

Climate Change has been sold as an end of the world crisis but people can sense the hype, the over sold, the exaggerations… No matter how passionately anyone “believes” in Human caused Climate Change, the reality is that almost no one sees or experiences real reasons to force them to change their behavior.

Another Reality is that Cheap plentiful energy has been really good for the world.

People are gradually catching on that Climate Change is much more than just science and physics.  They also have to believe in the input assumptions and theories and the projections from climate models and then impact forecasts from notoriously unreliable economic models. It may take much less GDP and be better for the environment and the economy to adapt versus spend trillions to try reduce CO2.

The theories project that adding CO2 from burning hydrocarbons will destabilize the global climate but the world has been through a lot of natural glacial and warming cycles.  It has been much hotter, had much more CO2 (up to 20X), had faster temperature and CO2 changes and yet runaway warming has never happened.  This is what is expected as all long term systems in nature are self-correcting.  The climate changes naturally and the climate is within natural ranges so is there really much effect from man?


Climate Change Science Summary

Climate Change is based on three dependent Theories.

Theory One – Green House Gas Theory – the first doubling of Carbon Dioxide content in the atmosphere is predicted to cause up to 1 degree C of warming in the atmosphere due to increased long wave back radiation.  Issues which limit further temperature rise are the logarithmic decline in the amount of back radiation as CO2 concentration increases, convection mixing and overlap/saturation of the back radiation spectrum by existing Water Vapor.  Most people are surprised to hear that the estimated amount of the GHG effect that is attributed to CO2 in the  peer reviewed scientific literature is a range from as low as 2 % to as high as 45 %. The amount of effect will vary by the second with latitude, altitude, time of day/night, over land/water, season, cloud cover/type and humidity, convection, losses to space, etc. so programming the changing effects in a Model is very difficult so most climate models use equations and relationships that approximate 15 to 20%. The CO2 residency time is a major issue as many models have very long times such as decades/centuries versus the published literature. See below.  The only way to test or verify this is make projections and test against real world temperatures but it is hard to separate out natural variability.

Theory Two – Amplification/Positive Feedback Theory – the predicted temperature rise due to increased back radiation is theorized to increase humidity in atmosphere which is predicted to cause 1 to 4 Degrees C of additional warming which is 3 to 4 times as much as the predicted impact of the increase in CO2.  The main issues are that the predicted humidity rise and the resultant temperatures increases have not been observed in the atmosphere by decades of balloon and satellite observations so the Climate Sensitivity to increases in CO2 appears to be over estimated. The largest temperature rise was predicted by the climate models for the lower Troposphere in latitudes around the equator (20S to 20N)(Search “missing hot spot”). (see below) Climate models also do not do a good job of handling clouds – formation, movement, albedo, etc. and vertical energy transfers like storms or other forms of convection and losses to space.

Theory Three – Catastrophic Climate Change Theory – The additional warming from the first two theories is theorized to cause Catastrophic Changes to the Climate and dramatically increase disastrous climate events. Main issues are both the actual Global Temperatures and the rate of temperature increase are running way below Computer Model Forecasts. There has been very little increase in global temperatures in the last 19 years and the link between warming and increased climate disasters is not apparent.  There is no scientific link between Mild Warming and Catastrophic Climate Events so if there is only mild warming then no expected increase in catastrophic events. There are also positive benefits of increased CO2 and mild warming such as increased plant growth, less fuel use and less deaths to cold weather

The Positive Feedback Theory is predicted to cause the majority of the warming but the empirical real world data shows no increased humidity and very little increase in global temperatures for the last 19 years despite a 40% rise in CO2 concentration.  Climate Sensitivity forecasts are being reduced as there are now 14 published papers with climate sensitivities below the IPCC AR5 estimates. The lower sensitivities to CO2 are due to increased attribution to Natural Variability. 

Is Atmospheric CO2 Content Really the Dominant Driver in Global Temperatures?

Interesting graphs below or attached. 

Please read the recent Congressional and Senate Testimony (pdf attached) from Dr Christy who co designed the first temperature/weather satellite system for NASA and contributed to the UN IPCC reports.  He has been one of the esteemed members of the IPCC Consensus group but he is now questioning why the data does not match with the theories.

Comment on NASA site: I have previously read the NASA site and agree with most of it.  Of course the world has been warming up, the glaciers melting, etc since the last ice age and more recently since the Little Ice Age which ended in the mid 1800’s.  The real discussion is how much of the warming since 1950’s may be due to CO2 and specifically due to human caused CO2.  Scientists cannot even agree when the added human CO2 levels were enough to actually cause a detectable amount of temperature change – some say 1950 – some 1970’s.  The NASA site is very simplified and basically says that they cannot figure out why the earth is warming up or why the 1980 to 1998 period warmed quickly so it must be due to the increase in CO2!  The Consensus part is just statements that all the Science Societies do not have a better explanation for the warming so they agree that it is likely that it is caused by the increase in human CO2.  They do not really know but they have advanced theories on how the change in CO2 could work and that is what is programmed into the models that are over estimating the warming compared to the measured data.  Time to go looking for a new  or more complex explanation.

Follow the Scientific Method – propose theory – Test against real data – Adjust theory – retest – etc.

Models vs temps


Climate Sensitivity in Published Papers

Models vs observationsDrought

CO2 Residence timehurricainesperyear   No CO2 effect on sea levels!


Are Renewables Just a Dream?


The real problem with the unreliables is not just a low EROEI but the dragged out and erratic profile of the energy delivery. Oil, coal and gas can be 100 % utilized as soon as they are available(100 % dispatchable and distributable) whereas wind and solar comes in dribs and drabs over 10 or 20 years before they break even on the original energy expended. They can never build themselves. On a net present value or time value basis they are a dead loss which is why they are and will always be uneconomic.

Unreliables do not deliver energy:

  • How it is needed – unpredictable and not 24/7/365.  Solar is 10 to 20% and wind 15 to 23% – not dispatchable.
  • When it is needed – rarely during peak demand times during day or in winter
  • Where it is needed – not easily distributed plus has normal line losses with distance. Cannot be located where is is most needed.

Wind and solar do not deliver energy how, when, or where it is needed. They are not reliable, cheap, dispachable at peak need or 24/7/365 and cannot be located near high demand areas. So called green energy has to be paired with storage or full backup to be useful so it has too low of a EROEI to power modern society. The energy comes in dribs and drabs over the years so no renewable can build itself and can never be economic on a net present value or time value basis. We need to provide cheap abundant energy to everyone which will raise the standard of living which will also solve population growth fears.

Electric Cars

Some people seem to think that electric cars will become popular enough that they will lower the demand for oil which ignores the logic trap – that  cannot occur because it would mean that oil prices would be so low that electric cars would never have better economics than gasoline cars.

Dr. John Christy -Testimony to House Science Committee

In a nonpolitical world, this Testimony  by this prominent of an expert would be viewed by anyone who understands science as Checkmate, game-set-match, QED to the Climate Alarmist view of CO2 as a Climate Control Knob.

The GHG Theory and the Positive Feedback theory both manifest themselves ( in Climate Models) first as an increased temperature in the mid Troposphere which is the main layer measured by the balloon and satellite data sets.

None of the 4 balloon or 3 satellite data sets are measuring anything close to the predicted increases so the predicted “Climate Sensitivity ”  to changes in CO2 is over estimated by several times.  Carbon Dioxide has continued to rise and over a third of the total man made CO2 has been produced in the last 20 years and yet reality is that Temperatures have not risen as predicted.  The empirical measurements say the theory is busted.

The surface temperature data sets show more warming but are also way below predictions despite the “hottest year ever” claims.  The surface set is subject to UHI error , adjustments, estimates for large areas like the arctic and questionable handling of ocean data (70% of the area!).

It is also worthwhile to read the appendix as he shows how many of the claims about adverse effects of climate change are not happening. There is no increase in droughts, wildfires, crop losses and he could have included actual decreases in tornados and hurricanes and hurricane strength.

This has become such a stupid political football and is being used to justify expensive and damaging policies such as denying cheap fossil fuel energy to the third world which will continue to cost many lives.

Dr. John Christy Testimony